9.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Konin.
10.  He was not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
11.  In 1992 the applicant was the manager of a state-owned bank, located in Kramsk. On 18 March 1992 the Konin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) instituted an investigation concerning the applicant. Between 18 March 1992 and 2 June 1992 the prosecutor heard twenty-six witnesses in the case.
12.  On 2 June 1992 the investigation was stayed until the completion of a control of the bank in Kramsk by experts of the National Bank of Poland. The investigation was resumed on 7 October 1992.
13.  Between 15 October and 18 December 1992 the prosecutor heard a further eight witnesses.
14.  On the latter date the prosecutor charged the applicant with accepting bribes and mismanagement of the bank.
15.  On the same day he placed the applicant under police supervision and imposed bail in the amount of 100,000,000 old Polish zlotys. Subsequently, the applicant’s car was impounded.
16.  On 28 December 1992 the prosecutor stayed the investigation because of the applicant’s state of health.
17.  On 29 January 1993 the applicant added to the case-file a medical certificate stating that he was unable to take part in the proceedings for an indefinite period of time.
18.  On 11 February 1993 the prosecutor, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, released the applicant from police supervision.
19.  On 15 May 1993 the expert appointed by the prosecutor submitted his opinion to the effect that the applicant was able to participate in the proceedings.
20.  On 28 May 1993 the prosecutor heard a witness. In November 1993 he heard four further witnesses and requested the receiver in bankruptcy of the bank in Kramsk to submit certain documents concerning the bank.
21.  On 18 October and 27 December 1993 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor. On the latter date the prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant. On 29 December 1993 he decided to submit to the court a separate bill of indictment against the other suspects in the applicant’s case.
22.  On 30 December 1993 the prosecutor discontinued the part of the investigation concerning the alleged accepting of bribes.
23.  On 31 December 1993 he submitted to the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) the bill of indictment.
24.  On 8 March 1994 the court transferred the case to the Konin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), considering that it had no jurisdiction over that type of offences.
25.  On 22 June 1994 the District Court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant.
26.  On 15 July 1994 it appointed a legal-aid counsel for the applicant. Subsequently, the counsel informed the court that due to a conflict of interests he could not defend the applicant. On 20 October 1994 it appointed another defence counsel for the applicant. Subsequently, after that counsel’s refusal to defend the applicant, the court appointed another one.
27.  In August 1994 the court mistakenly scheduled a hearing for 31 October 1994, which was a public holiday. In reply to the applicant’s complaint, on 2 December 1994 the President of the Konin District Court apologised to him for that mistake.
28.  The hearing scheduled for 22 December 1994 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel.
29.  On 13 February 1995 the court refused the applicant’s request for release from the preventive measures. On 9 March 1995 the Konin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
30.  On 27 February and 6 March 1995 the District Court held hearings.
31.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that the applicant was in hospital. On 24 May 1995 he submitted medical certificates confirming the applicant’s inability to participate in the proceedings.
32.  On 29 May 1995 the court dismissed the applicant’s further request for release from the preventive measures. On 22 June 1995 the Regional Court upheld that decision.
33.  On 5 June 1995 a hearing was adjourned because of the applicant’s illness. The court ordered an expert opinion on the applicant’s health. On 21 August 1995 the experts submitted their opinion, in which they stated that the applicant’s illness made it impossible for him to participate in the proceedings.
34.  On 28 August 1995 the court stayed the proceedings, relying on the experts’ opinion as to the applicant’s health. The applicant’s counsel appealed against that decision.
35.  The Konin Regional Court ordered the preparation of a supplementary opinion on the applicant’s health. It further requested the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Poznań Medical Academy to give their opinion. According to the latter opinion, the applicant could participate in the proceedings.
36.  On 13 November 1995 the Konin Regional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the District Court’s decision by which the proceedings had been stayed.
37.  The hearing scheduled for 19 December 1995 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel.
38.  A hearing was held on 30 January 1996.
39.  The applicant’s counsel requested the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 5 March 1996, submitting that he would have a hearing in another case at the same time.
40.  The hearing scheduled for 26 March 1996 was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s counsel.
41.  Further hearings were held on 9 and 30 April 1996.
42.  The hearing scheduled for 11 June 1996 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel.
43.  At the hearing held on 13 August 1996 the witnesses whose examination the applicant had requested failed to appear. The court adjourned the hearing until 10 September 1996 and ordered the police to bring those witnesses to the subsequent hearing.
44.  On 10 September 1996 the witnesses were not brought to the court and the police stated that one of them lived in Germany.
45.  The witnesses also failed to attend the hearing of 4 October 1996. Subsequently, the applicant’s counsel requested the examination of two further witnesses.
46.  On 14 October 1996 the Ministry of Justice, in reply to the District Court’s enquiry, informed it that the witness who was detained in Belarus could not be extradited to Poland.
47.  On 7 November 1996, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the Ministry of Justice found the proceedings lengthy. It considered that the delay was caused, inter alia, by his illness and witnesses’ failure to attend hearings. The Ministry informed the applicant that it would take the proceedings under its administrative supervision.
48.  On 10 December 1996 and 14 January 1997 the court held further hearings.
49.  On 17 January 1997 it ordered an expert opinion, at the request of the applicant’s counsel. The opinion was submitted to the court on 29 September 1997.
50.  At the hearing held on 16 December 1997 an expert was questioned and a supplementary opinion was ordered, at the request of the applicant’s counsel.
51.  On 18 February 1998, in reply to the court’s request, the Department of Accountancy of the Poznań Academy of Economics informed the court that due to their enormous workload nobody had agreed to prepare the requested opinion. In March 1998 the court asked the expert already appointed in the case to supplement his previously submitted opinion. The supplementary opinion was submitted on 7 September 1998.
52.  The hearing scheduled for 13 October 1998 was adjourned because of that expert’s failure to attend it.
53.  The court held a hearing on 20 November 1998. Subsequently, it again requested the Academy of Economy to indicate an expert who could prepare an opinion in the case, but to no avail.
54.  The hearing scheduled for 18 December 1998 was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s counsel.
55.  The hearing scheduled for 2 February 1999 was adjourned, as the court decided to appoint another expert in accountancy. The opinion of that expert was submitted to the court on 30 August 1999.
56.  Subsequently, the court fixed the date of the following hearing for 19 October 1999. The applicant’s counsel requested that a hearing be held on another date, submitting that he would not be able to participate on the date indicated by the court.
57.  Hearings were held on 7 and 17 December 1999.
58.  On 23 December 1999 the Konin District Court gave a judgment. The applicant was acquitted.